Register Free

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2017 F-35 news and discussion thread

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #81
    Originally posted by obligatory View Post
    JDAM for SEAD ? what a lousy SAM battery
    With the recently mentioned 0.000028m RCS, even the s-400's gravestone radar only has a 30km range against the f-35's frontal aspect. Coulda been anything else within the Russian inventory.

    Comment


      #82
      Originally posted by ActionJackson View Post
      With the recently mentioned 0.000028m RCS, even the s-400's gravestone radar only has a 30km range against the f-35's frontal aspect. Coulda been anything else within the Russian inventory.
      firstly you know where you can shove the "mentioned 0.000028m RCS"
      secondly any point defense built the past 40 years makes minced meat out of a few scant JDAM,
      Even.Higher.Speed.A.R.M. and/or swarming is researched for a good reason
      Last edited by obligatory; 5th February 2017, 13:49.

      Comment


        #83
        Originally posted by obligatory View Post
        JDAM for SEAD ? what a lousy SAM battery
        Methinks they got help from the growlers or the threat was not representative.

        Comment


          #84
          Originally posted by Hotshot View Post
          Methinks they got help from the growlers or the threat was not representative.
          Based on the intent and purpose of RF, it more likely that the simulated threat was more sophisticated that what the F-35 will face in the majority of potential combat theaters.

          No Growlers at RF 17-1.

          Comment


            #85
            Originally posted by FBW View Post
            Based on the intent and purpose of RF, it more likely that the simulated threat was more sophisticated that what the F-35 will face in the majority of potential combat theaters.

            No Growlers at RF 17-1.
            Yes there were Growlers at RF 17-1:



            I have a very hard time believing an F-35 can get within JDAM range of a top notch russian radar without jamming support at least.

            This exercise was conducted just before Trump took office. It may well be that it was set up to make the F-35 look better.

            Overall still I think it did well overall though.

            Comment


              #86
              Originally posted by obligatory View Post
              firstly you know where you can shove the "mentioned 0.000028m RCS"
              It is always a pleasure to read such a well-considered and detailed response.



              Originally posted by obligatory View Post
              any point defense built the past 40 years makes minced meat out of a few scant JDAM
              How many point-defence systems built in the part 40 years do you have detailed information on (or even hands-on experience with) in order to be so sure?
              Mercurius Cantabrigiensis

              Comment


                #87
                Originally posted by Hotshot View Post
                Yes there were Growlers at RF 17-1:
                Yeah there were, overlooked the non-USAF participating units.

                Considering the F-35's mission set, the access U.S. has had to early S-300 systems, I wouldn't say it is unreasonable that the F-35 performed well against simulated threats.

                Comment


                  #88
                  Originally posted by FBW View Post
                  Yeah there were, overlooked the non-USAF participating units.

                  Considering the F-35's mission set, the access U.S. has had to early S-300 systems, I wouldn't say it is unreasonable that the F-35 performed well against simulated threats.
                  Maybe really the first generation S-300, and even at that.

                  Apart from this, I think the idea of prioritizing the JDAM and GBU-12 for the IOC instead of the SDB1 and laser SDB1 was stupid. Other planes like bombers can go after large buildings and bridges with 1 ton JDAMs, while the SDB/LSDB give the F-35 8 bombs in stealth mode against radars, TELs, rocket launchers, tanks, aircraft shelters, and non armored targets for CAS and all that at long range.

                  Comment


                    #89
                    I would say that this one about bombing radars is just a way of playing with worlds.
                    F-35 actually (and for a long time) cannot carry any ARM so it's limited to use its own Jdams/laser guided bombs.
                    It means it could at best operate a preordinated strike against a stationary target whose location is know in advance and that have not any meaningful redundancy and/or multi-layered capacity.
                    Needless to say this is not what you can expect by any modern AD system, being it russian, chinese or western.
                    It also mean it could not operate at all in a Wild Weasel mode i.e. protecting strike packages against sudden/pop up threats.

                    Let's add that if is true that in performing this task it have to be escorted by a Growler I just wonder if it would not be better to just send the AGM-88E HARM capable one of the odd couple...

                    This not to trash the F-35 at all, just this damned habits of persons having an humanistic background like me to critically examine any given text and their retorical figures...
                    Last edited by Marcellogo; 5th February 2017, 18:00.

                    Comment


                      #90
                      Originally posted by Mercurius View Post
                      It is always a pleasure to read such a well-considered and detailed response.
                      first comes a dope smoking engineer and think its perfectly scientific to state measurements in how it compares to an apple or penile head, then next thing you know the village idiot translate the size of a generic penile head into,
                      wait for it, no less than 6 decimal accuracy ?! and take it from there.

                      then in the next breath the RCS is so terribly top secret so it is unthinkable to fly without drop tanks or a luneburg lens
                      to keep the stated down to 6 decimal accuracy RCS top secret,
                      are you even listening to yourself ?

                      as for a pantsir plinking down glide bombs, yes, if they can nail a mach 4 harm or a maneuvering fighter,
                      or grenade shells, they better be able to plink down glide bombs
                      Last edited by obligatory; 5th February 2017, 18:52.

                      Comment


                        #91
                        Originally posted by FBW View Post
                        Considering the F-35's mission set, the access U.S. has had to early S-300 systems, I wouldn't say it is unreasonable that the F-35 performed well against simulated threats.
                        Considering the US have access to S-300P, I'd say it's completely unreasonable to predict that it would operate similarly against the S-400.

                        Comment


                          #92
                          Things to remember.

                          F-35 brings a method of attack to the fight which is different than what was traditionally used by Gen 4 aircraft. Get used to it.

                          F-35s fight as a 4-ship flight.

                          That means 4 APG-81s and ETOS, coordinated by MADL, can provide precise target location from long range for an attack from up to 8 GBU-31s.

                          A GBU-31 can be tossed a very, very long distance from a jet at Mach 0.8 and 35,000 feet.

                          The four APG-81s have the ability to perform coordinated electronic attacks to suppress RF-based defenses during GBU flyout to the target.

                          Comment


                            #93
                            Originally posted by obligatory View Post
                            first comes a dope smoking engineer etc etc etc....
                            Goodness gracious - two well-considered and detailed responses in a single day!

                            Your rambling opening paragraph makes no sense, other than to show an interest in the recreational habits of some (unspecified) engineer, plus some strange size-related obsessions.

                            The claimed range performance of various radars against defined targets can often be obtained from manufacturers' brochures. From there, the process of working out the level RCS reduction needed to achieve a militarily useful reduction in radar range is not difficult, and gives ballpark values for the RCS that a stealthy platform or missile must possess.

                            Such ballpark values are unclassified and have appeared in the open literature, giving a good idea of how far the 0.000... square metre sequence must stretch. However, the exact values of RCS that have been achieved by various programmes is classified, as are the way that these vary with frequency and with aspect angle.

                            The practice of flying aircraft such as the F-22 with radar reflectors when on non-operational flights is well documented.

                            As for the ability to "nail a mach 4 harm or a maneuvering fighter", my own real-world experience of missile operations tells me that the results obtainable on the Ashuluk range may not translate into combat results, especially if the attacker is using a salvo, or has support from a stand-off jammer, decoys or other penetration aids. Operator fatigue (and operator funk) might also degrade performance.



                            Originally posted by MSphere View Post
                            Considering the US have access to S-300P, I'd say it's completely unreasonable to predict that it would operate similarly against the S-400.
                            The US may not have an S-400, but I would be fairly confident that they will have reverse-engineered the system to create an accurate threat simulation. That is what they did with the SA-2 and other earlier SAM systems.
                            Mercurius Cantabrigiensis

                            Comment


                              #94
                              Originally posted by Mercurius View Post
                              The US may not have an S-400, but I would be fairly confident that they will have reverse-engineered the system to create an accurate threat simulation. That is what they did with the SA-2 and other earlier SAM systems.
                              US will have reverse engineered the S-400? Are you sure you are ok, Mercurius? You slowly start to sound like JSR.. well, a bit..

                              Comment


                                #95
                                Originally posted by Marcellogo View Post
                                I would say that this one about bombing radars is just a way of playing with worlds.
                                F-35 actually (and for a long time) cannot carry any ARM so it's limited to use its own Jdams/laser guided bombs.
                                It means it could at best operate a preordinated strike against a stationary target whose location is know in advance and that have not any meaningful redundancy and/or multi-layered capacity.
                                Needless to say this is not what you can expect by any modern AD system, being it russian, chinese or western.
                                It also mean it could not operate at all in a Wild Weasel mode i.e. protecting strike packages against sudden/pop up threats.

                                Let's add that if is true that in performing this task it have to be escorted by a Growler I just wonder if it would not be better to just send the AGM-88E HARM capable one of the odd couple...

                                This not to trash the F-35 at all, just this damned habits of persons having an humanistic background like me to critically examine any given text and their retorical figures...
                                Ahem! You forgot the 70nm JSOW, guy.

                                Comment


                                  #96
                                  Originally posted by FBW View Post
                                  Yeah there were, overlooked the non-USAF participating units.

                                  Considering the F-35's mission set, the access U.S. has had to early S-300 systems, I wouldn't say it is unreasonable that the F-35 performed well against simulated threats.
                                  so early generation give you idea about later generation S300. why Chinese imported that system continuously for 20 years?. could they not replicate from earlier systems?
                                  Chinese are the closest who can replicate considering there vast spending on missiles and large pool of scientific graduates.
                                  US has been building million of automobiles and still Germanic dependency from Sigmar Gabriel statement.
                                  http://www.mediaite.com/online/germa...d-better-cars/
                                  The US car industry would have a bad awakening if all the supply parts that arent being built in the US were to suddenly come with a 35 percent tariff. I believe it would make the US car industry weaker, worse and above all more expensive, he continued

                                  Comment


                                    #97
                                    Originally posted by djcross View Post
                                    F-35 brings a method of attack to the fight which is different than what was traditionally used by Gen 4 aircraft. Get used to it.
                                    Tossing bombs on SAM is not a virtue, it's plain stupid..

                                    Comment


                                      #98
                                      Originally posted by SolarWarden View Post
                                      Ahem! You forgot the 70nm JSOW, guy.
                                      That's only approaching the ranges of currently fielded systems from below.. not exactly a next-generation performance.. plus it's non-powered and takes much longer time to eliminate the target.. the F-35 needs a proper ARM..

                                      Comment


                                        #99
                                        Originally posted by JSR View Post
                                        so early generation give you idea about later generation S300. why Chinese imported that system continuously for 20 years?. could they not replicate from earlier systems?
                                        Chinese are the closest who can replicate considering there vast spending on missiles and large pool of scientific graduates.
                                        US has been building million of automobiles and still Germanic dependency from Sigmar Gabriel statement.
                                        From your response, I assume you have never heard of HQ-9 in its multiple versions?

                                        Comment


                                          Originally posted by SolarWarden View Post
                                          Ahem! You forgot the 70nm JSOW, guy.
                                          Explain me please , what velocity it can reach and can it be aimed on a pop up target or it need to have precise coordinates?
                                          So its about the same efficacy of a SDD or an JDAM bomb with a diamondback kit for what it takes a Wild Weasel mission.
                                          Seriously, do you really read other people's post or have only Pavlovian reactions?
                                          Last edited by Marcellogo; 5th February 2017, 21:57.

                                          Comment


                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X